Slashdot Mirror
UK ISP Adult Filters Block Sex Education Websites Allows Access To Porn
toshikodo writes "The BBC is reporting that Internet content filters being rolled out by major ISPs in the UK are failing to allow access to acceptable content, such as sex education and sexual abuse advise sites, while also still allowing access to porn. According to the article, 'TalkTalk's filter is endorsed by Mr Cameron but it failed to block 7% of the 68 pornographic websites tested by Newsnight.' The ISPs claim that it is impossible for their filters to be 100% accurate, and that they are working with their users to improve quality. I wonder how long it will be before one of these filters blocks access to the Conservative Party's website, and what will Cameron do then?"
Can't say I'm surprised by this.
We let kids play ultra violent war simulation for hours and hours, but god forbid they get a glimpse of love and biology. Something is seriously wrong with this picture Mr Cameron, aside from applying technology to shape what is a social matter (mainly fear of educating properly our children).
Tomorrow is another day...
The ISPs claim that it is impossible for their filters to be 100% accurate
Nobody's asking for it to be 100% accurate, but there's a huge difference between 100% and just 93% accurate.
Considering this is automated restriction of speech, you'd better make damn sure you're atleast in the 99.99% range of accuracy.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
no, actually I don't. In fact I love it. I told you so, I told you so, I told you so ...
-- Make America hate again!
ISPs claim that [...] they are working with their users to improve quality.
One question: how can the users know about a blocked sexual education site in order to request unblocking it?
So I'm on BT, and like most people I've replaced the terrible "home hub" with a simple 4 router solution, 5G backbone to distribute wired around the house, single 2.4G AP for non-wired devices, OSPF to manage it all.
It's connected upstream to the VDSL via a pppoe (username bthomehub@btbroadband.com, no password), and the central DNS proxy uses either 4.2.2.2 or 8.8.8.8 upstream.
I've spent the morning scientifically browsing lots of porn sites, and haven't found a single one blocked. A google search for "porn" reveals the following sites on the first attempt, all work just fine.
http://www.pornhub.com/
http://www.youporn.com/
http://www.redtube.com/
http://www.porn.com/
http://www.xnxx.com/
http://www.perfectgirls.net/
The search also brings up the following site
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
Which is blocked as being morally unwelcome in my house.
What am I doing wrong?
It's nothing to do with porn and we all know it.
Did you notice that filter also blocks "extreme political content"?
Who decides what's too extreme?
They're going to ask everyone over the next year to choose filtering or no filtering, how long do you think it'll be until it's presumed consent unless you specifically ask for no filtering? How long after that anyone who wants no filtering is subject to extra GCHQ monitoring as they're considered subversive?
Can someone please stop the country? I want to get off -.-
Who determines what political sites are extreme?
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
I don't know if you've seen any porn lately, but it has nothing to do with love (I'll grant you biology). Though I disagree with the UK and with censorship at large, I'm beginning to really hate this "boohoo violence is okay but love is taboo" whining. Besides, when videogames come up again after some high-school shooting, we're all up-ins too.
We let kids play ultra violent war simulation for hours and hours, but god forbid they get a glimpse of love and biology.
It isn't so obviously wrong. Most kids will never commit any significant act of violence, but most will have sex. If they get a warped view of violence, it won't really affect their lives. If they get a warped view of sex (and nearly all porn is a production, not real sex) then that could screw up their ability to have sexual intimacy for the rest of their lives.
I doubt that's how the censors see it, but a broken clock is still right twice a day.
Most kids will never commit any significant act of violence, but most will have sex.
Regardless of whether or not they watch porn. Furthermore, I highly, highly doubt that most people (even kids) aren't capable of distinguishing between reality and porn. But even if someone isn't capable of doing that, a five second talk would likely suffice; censorship will never be an acceptable solution to me.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Indeed he won't care, because he hasn't done this to 'protect children' or any similar thing. It's about political positioning: it's purpose is to present a certain image of the Conservative party - we're this sort of people - to a particular segment of voters who they hope will vote for them. (It wouldn't surprise me if this includes wives wondering what their husbands are doing as much as parents). It also helps distinguish themselves from their coalition partners who are the most pro-civil liberties of the mainstream parties, and who may be seen by some as saying 'we oppose protecting children'.
A huge amount of government policy and law is symbolic. Like the rest, you will notice that it doesn't have to actually work in order to achieve these goals.
for those parents who don't teach their children about these subjects, they obviously know their children well enough to know that they should not engage in further damaging the gene pool.
Unfortunately, the less kids know about sex, the more likely they are to spread their genes in an undesired and uncontrolled way. That's why sex education is so important and shouldn't be left to parents.
Also, the parents are often parents due to their own lack of sex education.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
eh?
Saying that home made amateur porn is love and the rest ain't is being a tad bit over simplistic. Sex is there for the enjoyment, believe it or not. Seriously think about it from a biological perspective. If sex were a pain in the arse (heh heh heh) then we would not be doing it because it would be too much effort. For example imagine our society relied on the fact we needed to lose weight. We would have mucho less people right now because even obese folks want to have sex. Thus because sex is very enjoyable we try to do it however, or wherever we can. Some more, some less. Don't believe, read over the Bonobo monkey, google "bonobo monkey sex". Its a hoot, and if that ain't an example of nymphomania I don't know what is.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Sex education will happen. No matter whether you want it to or not. You can only decide whether your kids learn about it in the classroom or the school yard.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I don't know if you have seen any porn lately, but more female oriented stuff is quite popular now. It tends to focus on the bond between the performers and barely shows the actual penetration. It's much better than the usual macho bullshit.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC